What is the most evil corporation in the world?

[Barrister]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Google.

I mean they aren't all THAT evil, but they are evil, and they get bonus points for having the gall to have their unofficial motto of "Don't be evil".

[Maximus]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Google.

I mean they aren't all THAT evil, but they are evil, and they get bonus points for having the gall to have their unofficial motto of "Don't be evil".

Elaborate

[Barrister]

Well their entire business model is based on stealing the content of everyone else on the web and then putting their own advertising on top of it.

[Maximus]

Well that's certainly one way to spin it.

[The Larch]

Nobody mentioned Haliburton yet?



Excellent...

[Razgovory]

I'm amused by all the gene-modified food alarmists.

[Barrister]

Well that's certainly one way to spin it.

Am I wrong?

Google generates virtually no content (some small exceptions - Google Maps / Street View is google-generated), yet sells billions of dollars of advertising for linking to other people's content.

[Admiral Yi]

Beeb: that sounds more like a description of HuffPo. 

[Razgovory]

Well that's certainly one way to spin it.

Am I wrong?

Google generates virtually no content (some small exceptions - Google Maps / Street View is google-generated), yet sells billions of dollars of advertising for linking to other people's content.

Yeah, it's like a delivery company.  I never considered UPS evil because the stuff they give me isn't actually from them.

[Barrister]

Well that's certainly one way to spin it.

Am I wrong?

Google generates virtually no content (some small exceptions - Google Maps / Street View is google-generated), yet sells billions of dollars of advertising for linking to other people's content.

Yeah, it's like a delivery company.  I never considered UPS evil because the stuff they give me isn't actually from them.

That's a Marti-esque bad analogy.

The problem isn't that google "dlivers" content to you - it's that they don't pay the content creators anything, yet profit by selling ads.

[MadImmortalMan]

I second Google. Facebook is trying, but they aren't quite as evil as Google yet.

[Admiral Yi]

The problem isn't that google "dlivers" content to you - it's that they don't pay the content creators anything, yet profit by selling ads.

Do they really?  I thought they just gave you a link with the first couple lines of an article.

[Barrister]

The problem isn't that google "dlivers" content to you - it's that they don't pay the content creators anything, yet profit by selling ads.

Do they really?  I thought they just gave you a link with the first couple lines of an article.

Yes, that's exactly what they do.  And it's enormously profitable for them.

[garbon]

That's a Marti-esque bad analogy.

The problem isn't that google "dlivers" content to you - it's that they don't pay the content creators anything, yet profit by selling ads.

I don't know - from old business models, companies like Google would be charging content creators to have their content listed for other's to find (think telephone book). Instead, the content creators basically get free advertising and the only payment is that they let Google make a little profit off of them.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes, that's exactly what they do.  And it's enormously profitable for them.

As well it should be, it's an amazing search engine.

But who the hell types in "Romney Baptizes Famous Dead Jew" into Google, gets a bunch of links about Romney baptizing dead Jews and stops there?  Presumably they want to read an article on it.  So they click a link and the content provider gets a hit and their own ad exposure.